is it illegal to use a bittorrent to download tv shows?

is it illegal to use a bittorrent to download tv shows? Recording tv shows is not illegal. I assume that sharing those recorded shows with someone is not illegal..... so, is downloading via any bittorrent program illegal?

is it illegal to use a bittorrent to download tv shows? Recording tv shows is not illegal. I assume that sharing those recorded shows with someone is not illegal..... so, is downloading via any bittorrent program illegal?

Click to expand...

some shows are illegal to record. for instance, in the US, it's illegal to record the Super Bowl on your home vcr.

What? illegal to record the superbowl? All tv shows are supposed to be legal to record (last time it was tested it was ok to record via VCR). Now that DVR's are around, people are recording and sharing and keeping digitally recorded TV shows.

So, question is, is it illegal to download a digitaly recorded tv show?

certain broadcasts *are* allowed to be recorded, such as shows on PBS, the news, etc etc. i don't know the exact laws.

as far as i know, everything on tv (except community broadcast stuff) is copyrighted, but some falls under some type of fair use that allows you to record and store it for personal use only. these would be the *only* shows you can legally share, though many that are illegal are shared anyway.

1. Users have the right to "time-shift" content that they have legally acquired.
This gives you the right to record video or audio for later viewing or listening. For example, you can use a VCR to record a TV show and play it back later.

2. Users have the right to "space-shift" content that they have legally acquired.
This gives you the right to use your content in different places (as long as each use is personal and non-commercial). For example, you can copy a CD to a portable music player so that you can listen to the songs while you're jogging.

3. Users have the right to make backup copies of their content.
This gives you the right to make archival copies to be used in the event that your original copies are destroyed.

4. Users have the right to use legally acquired content on the platform of their choice.
This gives you the right to listen to music on your Rio, to watch TV on your iMac, and to view DVDs on your Linux computer.

5. Users have the right to translate legally acquired content into comparable formats.
This gives you the right to modify content in order to make it more usable. For example, a blind person can modify an electronic book so that the content can be read out loud.

6. Users have the right to use technology in order to achieve the rights previously mentioned.
This last right guarantees your ability to exercise your other rights. Certain recent copyright laws have paradoxical loopholes that claim to grant certain rights but then criminalize all technologies that could allow you to exercise those rights. In contrast, this Bill of Rights states that no technological barriers can deprive you of your other fair use rights.

What does the "fair use privilege" mean?
Several important limitations to the author's exclusive rights exist under copyright law to encourage citizens to fully and openly exchange and build upon information to increase the public's knowledge. The most important limitation to the author's exclusive rights is the public's right to exercise a "fair use privilege" regarding copyrighted works. Fair use refers to an individual's right to use copyrighted material in a reasonable manner without the consent of copyright owner. In Sony v. Universal City Studios; the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a 'fair use;' the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." The fair use privilege was originally a judicially created doctrine, but has subsequently been codified by the copyright statute.

Why does the public have a "fair use" right to use copyrighted material without the copyright holder's permission?
At the doctrine's core is a fundamental belief that not all copying should be banned, particularly in socially important endeavors. The Supreme Court explained, "the fair use doctrine exists because copyright law extends limited proprietary rights to copyright owners only to the extent necessary to ensure dissemination to the public."

Copyright law serves as a regulatory scheme designed to balance the competing rights of creators to exploit their work, entrepreneurs to receive a return on their investment, and the public's interest in gaining access to works. The fair use doctrine and other public rights are designed to further the ultimate goal of disseminating knowledge to the public. In developing an information infrastructure that serves the public interest and encourages the open flow of information, it is essential to continue to balance the competing interests and preserve the public's fair use rights in an electronic environment as it has in more traditional formats.

How do I know if my use of copyrighted material would be considered a fair use?
Whether a particular use of a copyrighted work will be considered a fair use not subject to copyright depends upon the particular facts and circumstances involved. The biggest problem with the right is often trying to determine whether it applies to a specific action. This is because the law on fair use is murky and no real definition has ever emerged.

There is no "bright line" test that can tell if a particular use would be considered "fair," but the Copyright Act lists particular activities generally considered fair (this list is not to be construed as exclusive or limiting in any way). Some examples of uses listed in the statute that would generally be considered a fair use to copy copyrighted material include: Criticism, comment, parody, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, or personal use such as time or format shifting.

What are the factors to balance to determine if a use is fair?
The copyright statute lists four factors to balance together on a case-by-case basis to determine if a particular use would be considered fair. The law's language does not preclude consideration of other factors however. The factors to consider include:

0. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes -- Courts are more likely to find fair use where the use is for noncommercial purposes.

1. The nature of the copyrighted work -- A particular use is more likely to be fair where the copied work is factual rather than creative.

2. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole -- A court will balance this factor toward a finding of fair use where the amount taken is small or insignificant in proportion to the overall work.

3. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work -- If the court finds the newly created work is not a substitute product for the copyrighted work, it will be more likely to weigh this factor in favor of fair use.

Due to the difficulty in determining exactly when the fair use privilege would allow you to exercise one of the rights otherwise reserved for the copyright holder (and the penalties for guessing incorrectly can be extremely costly, even including jail time), it is wise to consult experienced counsel as well as to review previous judicial opinions where courts have analyzed whether a particular use would qualify as fair.

Do I have the right to make a copy of my CD for my own personal use?
Yes. The fair use doctrine allows an individual to make a copy of their lawfully obtained copyrighted work for their own personal use. Allowing people to make a copy of copyrighted music for their personal use provides for enhanced consumer convenience through legitimate and lawful copying. It can also enlarge the exploitable market for the rights holders. The fair use privilege's personal use right is what allows an individual to make a backup copy of their computer software as an essential defense against future media failure.

Personal use also permits music fans to make "mix tapes" or compilations of their favorite songs from their own personal music collection or the radio for their own personal enjoyment in a more convenient format, or "format shifting." Another example of acceptable personal use copying of a copyrighted work is "time-shifting," or the recording of a copyrighted program to enjoy at a later and more convenient time.

As new media present new ways for people to enjoy music, the public's fair use rights accompany them into the electronic frontier. Now, music fans have the right and ability to copy their own music collection onto their own computer storage device and create customized play lists for their own personal use and enjoyment of their music.

It is important to note that while consumers have the right to listen to their own music collection for their own personal use, they do not have the right, however, to make their music collections available to others by uploading them onto the Internet for public downloading.

** To learn more about copyright law's fair use privilege, check out Stanford University's Copyright and Fair Use Web Page at: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/

Many commercial movies are protected. Not all movies are protected.Unfortunately, current interpretation of laws in some countries, including the US, prohibits distribution of software that has the ability to copy commerical movies.

If you live in the United States, please understand that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) passed in 1998 does not expressly prohibit consumers from making backup copies of digital works - only the sale & distribution of tools that circumvent copy prevention technologies.

he Digital Millennium Copyright Act - DMCA

Also read the article DMCA Revisited

Introduction

Back until September '99 CSS - Content Scrambling System - was considered secure, at least if the movie industry was concerned. But in late September 99 I read the small note at inmatrix.com that CSS had been broken. Although there had been many cryptanalysts telling that CSS was not safe and rather easy to crack it took rather long till it cracking actually happened. Later in '99 the MPAA learned of an utility called DeCSS which allows people to decrypt the VOB files to your hard disk. It's important to know that copying DVDs was possible way before that. As soon as you have a software DVD player running you can copy any file on a DVD to your hard disk - but it will still be encrypted. However it might be possible to put the encrypted content on a recordable DVD and play it back without actually having to decrypt CSS. Soon after the MPAA learned of this utility, they started out sending letters like that to sites that were offering DeCSS. They pointed out that the DMCA would forbid circumventing CSS and therefore that utility would be illegal. Many providers complied to their demands and shut down websites offering the utility. On December 27 '99 the DVD-CCA - DVD Copy Control Association - launched a lawsuit in California against about 600 people worldwide who were offering DeCSS for download. In the first instance their motion for a preliminary injunction was denied but later on it was granted. That process made it widely know that CSS could be cracked and it was the first time that this was widely reported in the press. On January 15 2000 the MPAA launched a lawsuit against several website suing under the DMCA for circumvention of a copy-protection scheme. The motion for a preliminary injunction was granted on January 24. Later on the MPAA tried to expand to lawsuit to bar 2600.org from even linking to DeCSS.

So here we go...

The 105th congress of the United States of America devised the following Act during their 2nd session starting on January 27th 1998. It was ratified by Congress on October 21st and signed into law on October 28th 1998.

The whole act is quite long and I will only make reference to the actual document which can be downloaded on my site and I will only treat the sections which I think are important in this matter.

"Rather than being used to stop 'piracy,' the DMCA has predominantly been used to threaten and sue legitimate consumers, scientists, publishers, and competitors," says EFF senior staff attorney Fred von Lohmann.

"This law is not being used as Congress intended, and a review of the past seven years makes it clear that reform is needed."

The DMCA chills free expression and scientific research, jeopardizes fair use, impedes competition and innovation and interferes with other laws on the books, says the EFF, and with this, and more, in mind, has released Unintended Consequences: Seven Years Under the DMCA, the fourth update to the original 2003 paper.